Battle Value: Can you make a better system?

Pages: 1
Greyslayer
05/27/04 03:15 AM
216.14.192.234

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Rather than put forward my opinion on what would be a good replacement (since I haven't formulated a better system myself ), I would like to see a dicussion on how we could go about making a formulae that would allow us firstly to give weapons a realistic value for combat as well as then being able to be incorporated into units with speed and armour (and so on), without the serious issues that come about when you used level 2 equipment with battle value system.

For example there are 10 things that can usually be part of a weapon value calculation, those being:

Heat, Damage, Criticals, Tonnage, Minimum range, Short range, Medium Range, Long Range, ammo and perculiar traits (such as +1 for Heavy Lasers and -2 for pulse)

So any takers?
Gnome76
05/27/04 03:27 AM
24.249.3.240

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Don't forget rate of fire (U-AC, R-AC) and ability to accept specialized ammo.
Greyslayer
05/27/04 03:37 AM
216.14.192.233

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ammo, specialised or otherwise would be covered under the already mentioned ammo section.

The ROF (or rate of fire) might have to be dealt with in a similar fashion to the amount of damage dealt by missle weapons, probably under the damage heading. The negatives of higher ROFs would then be under the perculiar traits part.

Of course would a person use a weapon multiplier for specialised ammo or just a ammo multiplier? When in the BV system first mentioned under Maximum Tech there was a ammo multiplier but was added after the mech was give a bv so it ignored the multipliers already given for speed and so on. When I asked the question about it in the context of level 2 play I was told all specialist ammo were the base value and the multiplier (that was level 3) was completely ignored. In other words they just 'fudged' it into the game.

This was part of the reason Level 1 play was fairly balanced under Battle Value but under Level 2 play completely dodgey (IMHO)
Gnome76
05/27/04 03:45 AM
24.249.3.240

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hmm.... what about if a weapon is direct-fire, and therefore able to use a targeting computer?
Greyslayer
05/27/04 04:08 AM
216.14.192.234

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
% increase in direct-fire weapon values might be a good option. Similar to c3 systems since Targetting Comps cannot be jammed nor does it require networks that could be interferred with.
Rick Raisley
05/27/04 07:18 PM
65.5.219.222

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Do you feel something is wrong with the /weapon/ Battle Values currently? I don't disagree that the BV system overall needs improvement, but your discussion centered on the weapons themselves.
Rick Raisley
heavymetal@bellsouth.net

HeavyMetal Pro, Vee and Lite Home Page:
www.heavymetalpro.com
Greyslayer
05/28/04 12:57 AM
216.14.192.233

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I had used weapons as an example and the discussion had centered on the example for than what would be accomplished. I did not specifically say if we change the weapon values this would improve the bv system. It certain parts the issue may not lie with this part at all (of course a thread like this can also discuss if this is true or not).

I would say that you find the weapon values fine, but you might have an issue with the defensive ratings and so on used? That would support my earlier belief that in using 3025 technology only, the battle value system plays fairly well, its only when you start to include level 2 equipment and extra ammo types that the units get majorly unbalanced.

A good example would be the Griffin GRF-1N vs the Wraith TR-1. The Wraith is cheaper, moves faster has comparable armour and more likely to complete its task than the Griffin but since the Griffin doesn't have the XL Engine it is more expensive. Which would you field 99 times out of 100?
Gangrene
05/28/04 01:38 AM
24.6.228.14

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think the best choice is to have no equipment assessment system at all. It is my opinion that the selection of equipment is part of the tactics of the game, and the CV and BV systems undermine this. Experienced players should not need a rating system to choose mech(s). They should instead use their experience to choose the best equipment.

This would of course lead to mismatches, but that's part of the learning curve. If a "fair" game is desired than it can easily be accomplished with a scenario that has a limited selection of mechs.
Gangrene
Greyslayer
05/28/04 02:16 AM
216.14.192.234

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Tourneys cannot have something like this.

In the past the use of tonnage was fairly good, but the idea of having essentially equal forces belting it out in competition would be good. Under tonnage and to a lesser extent due to the buggy nature, bv, you find the same units being used again and again. If the system was really fairly equal then surely these units would be just as frequent as any selection of other units?

In Mechforce ranked battles for their official tourney they used tonnage for force determination, but used BV to determine how the victory points were divided up amongst the players involved. This did allow someone who really wanted to challenge themselves and go for extra points to submit cheaper units or even less tonnage, but some cheap units were superior in many ways to those more expensive units anyway (example Wraith and ANH-2A).

CV was effective in calculating how much resources it takes to keep the unit operational, the loss of the system meant the replacement with even worse systems followed (FM: Mercs method *PUKE*)
Rick Raisley
05/28/04 10:58 PM
65.5.219.222

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It has been my experience, or rather that of our playing group, that with forces of equal BV, low-tech wins every time. And I.S. wins over Clan most every time. The Clan and high-tech units die early deaths due to crits, while you just cannot crit those 3025 designs to death! ;-)
Rick Raisley
heavymetal@bellsouth.net

HeavyMetal Pro, Vee and Lite Home Page:
www.heavymetalpro.com
Gangrene
05/30/04 06:01 PM
24.6.228.14

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Games need some kind of system to balance the forces, especially tourneys, but I do not like the BV system. I prefer using tonnage or designated scenario options.
Gangrene
Greyslayer
05/31/04 05:41 PM
216.14.192.234

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Sounds to me the players using level 2 equipment and those specifically that use clans are clueless.

Level 2 players have the same access to level 1 tech as the level 1 players as well as access to ammo types which improve those level 1 units further. Examples of LRM-based tanks carrying thunder, swarm and other types of ammo weapons making them level 2 despite the level 1 tech base of the unit. Level 1 forces cannot have ECM, thus C3, Artemis IV FCS, Beagle and many other systems are completely unaffected so again it is a statement of how bad the level 2 tech players are rather than anything to do with BV itself.

There isn't a system good enough that can account for bad players....
Rick Raisley
06/01/04 10:49 PM
65.5.219.222

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Sounds to me the players using level 2 equipment and those specifically that use clans are clueless.



No, I don't think so.
Quote:

Level 2 players have the same access to level 1 tech as the level 1 players as well as access to ammo types which improve those level 1 units further.



Not really. Using selection tables, or just logic, the Clans are not going to be using a bunch of old, Level 1 designs. Oftentimes we play the same tech and rules level, and other times we don't. If we've been playing 3025 vs 3025 for a while, and specify a Clan versus 3050 game, it would not be in the spirit of the game for the Clanners to show up with AS7-Ds, now, would it?
Rick Raisley
heavymetal@bellsouth.net

HeavyMetal Pro, Vee and Lite Home Page:
www.heavymetalpro.com
Greyslayer
06/01/04 11:30 PM
216.14.192.234

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In 3050 the clans did use AS7-Ds in conflict. This though was not what I was getting at with level 1 and level 2 armies.

I was thinking more specifically I.S., a fairly well-supplied pirate force (level 1) of equal bv to a FedCom level 2 force should see the victory to the Fedcom side unless players virtually have no choice over the units they end up with or alternate ammo types they are allowed.

There is not much stopping the Fedcom force picking from the same level 1 list the pirates have plus the level 2 list they would normally have access too.... a far superior or far luckier commander may win but it IS stacked in the FedCom's favour in the example.

I've won bv games as either clans or I.S. level 2, purely level 1 technology units and equipment would suffer though. While a player may still consider fielding the best level 2 units about the prices on the best Level 1 units do not compare for what they can comparitively do.

Pardon me but when has people writing about or playing the Clans been in the 'spirit of the game' anyway?
tgsofgc
06/04/04 03:44 AM
209.110.234.52

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Its a valiant effort even if it is doomed to fail. I will have a submitted system (or at least prototype there of) ready to present here in 1 weeks time (assuming no serious time conflicts).

Changes planned:
Rebalance how heat is factored... preferably try to develop a system less concentrated on cool running alpha strikers.
Attempt to eliminate the flamer loop hole. Namely the BV is low enough that a few flamers costs maybe a ton or two but because the heat can signifigantly reduce the BV.
Fully Rebuild the Weapon/Equipment BV system.
Possibly incorporate cost as a factor (a unified system), if so eliminate oppurtunities for double penalties (aka xl fusion engines).

Time permitting Fully Rebalance Equipment/Weapon cost tables... such that XL Fusion engines aren't so heavily scorned (most players, especially older ones, prefer lower tech engines for survivability and also usually enjoy a much more swalloable cost. To aid in consistency the goal is to make xl engines more attractive to explain why everyone in the cannon universe is supposedly rushing to put these out.) Provide a simple an elegant system for modifying costs for things like availability.

Will any of this be useful, doubtful. Does it sound useful, at least to me. Will it get done, eventually. Will people be dissapointed, unquestionably.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
tgsofgc
06/11/04 02:13 AM
209.110.233.193

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well as expected I became slightly side tracked. Anyhow I have started work on such a system.

I started first on redeveloping the battle value system for weapons, and because they are the easiest (ie no ammo or strange firing modes etc) I began with the Clan Lasers.

My start basically involved the following:
I wanted to find a perspective number (based on current BV numbers) that would represent weapon's BV by figuring in Damage, Heat, Range (including minimum ranges). The next step will be to work Tonnage and critical space into the equation with out undervaluing long range weapons, and overvaluing those dumb ER Micros.

Base Munch Damage: Damage/Heat
Then I assumed a 7+ to hit not counting modifiers (ie pulse/Heavy) or range. I then multiplied this number across the weapons range, adjusting per modifiers due to minimum (which don't exist in clan energy weapons ).
Finally I multiplied those two numbers together... giving the Damage/Heat likely to hit over the weapons range.

This gave me the following list of values (rounded to two decimals for ease):
6.20 = ER Large
6.61 = ER Medium
4.72 = ER Small
2.05 = ER Micro

8.67 = Large Pulse
9.14 = Medium Pulse
3.92 = Small Pulse
3.92 = Micro Pulse

2.72 = Large Heavy
2.62 = Medium Heavy
1.22 = Small Heavy

0.63 = Flamer
6.77 = ER PPC

Since these values are great representation of the weapons relative to one another, i decided to use that as the base for this value calc. As such I took the highest Weapon (Medium Pulse) and divided the Cannon value for the Clan ER PPC (412) by it. This gave me a multiplier I used to generate the following list of values, not surprisingly... the Medium Pulse Laser is 412 .
279 = ER Large
298 = ER Medium
213 = ER Small
93 = ER Micro

391 = Large Pulse
412 = Medium Pulse
177 = Small Pulse
177 = Micro Pulse

123 = Large Heavy
118 = Medium Heavy
55 = Small Heavy

28 = Flamer
305 = ER PPC

As of now im planning to work heat disipation as follows.
Assign heatsinks a BV = to a medium grade energy weapon, and make it so this BV is calculated for every double heatsink or 1/2 of the single heat sinks over the base ten.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
Greyslayer
06/11/04 09:19 AM
216.14.192.234

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Looking at it the weapons themselves do not need a value for mass or criticals, this would be a limit related to how many weapons can be fitted on a unit and thus affect the overall bv.

Damage should be a sliding scale, the greater the damage the even greater the ratio of points being calculated into bv. Under this method there is no chance of medium pulse lasers in being able to be more expensive than a ER PPC.

Example would be that 2 damage weapon would have not only double the points of a 1 damage weapon as it's base but (lets say) another 5% more per point since larger the damage the higher the chance of going through a single location. Under this method a 10-point weapon like an ER Large would be 10 times + about 45% damage. It makes really dangerous items like AC 20s really expensive, the lack of range for that item will bring it back closer though.

Still constructive input either way.

Well done.
htmlord
06/11/04 02:57 PM
216.65.163.90

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
What about dropping Heat, Tons, and Crits from a weapons BV and do the following instead :

First calculate all weapons BV's independant of heat. Then, modify the total weapons scores by the percent of weapons the mech can fire per turn.

For example :
WLF-2 Wolfhound
20 Heat Dissappated
4 Med Lasers = 12 Heat
1 ER Lg Laser = 12 Heat
0 Jump Jets = 0 Heat
Running Movement = 2 Heat
Total = 26 Heat
20/26 = Roughly 82%
So, multiply the total BV of 4 M Lasers and 1 ER L Laser by 82% for the total weapons BV of a unit

Also, tonnage and bulk don't need to be in the BV of a weapon. Weapon BV's aren't about which weapon is necessarily better, pound for pound, but which is better total. A Medium Laser, ton for ton, is much better than an IS ER PPC, but that doesn't mean that a mech with 1 M Laser will beat a mech with 1 ER PPC. BV is used to determine the mech's total capacity, so let tonnage and bulk limit themselves. A mech can only carry so many PPC's, for instance.

As to the Targetting Computer and direct fire weapons, make the TC multiply the base BV of all direct fire weapons that can be attached by a certain percentage, but leave the BV of direct fire weapons alone. They are only better if they are attached to a TC.

Okay, I'd ramble on some more, but I have to go to work. Later!
tgsofgc
06/11/04 05:48 PM
209.110.231.117

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The problem here is it is basically throwing back to the system already in place. Namely everything is about heat disipation and alpha striking. Also unfortunately while this could be more accurate, it is also subjective and hence would require a unit by unit analysis.

For instance lets say my mech mounts 2 ER PPCs and tons of ER Small Lasers. It would drive the % way down, much like flamers do the current system. Basically allowing you to sacrifice a smaller amount of weight for a greater devaluing in the value system.

If your inclined I would encourage you to fully flesh out these ideas because multiple systems, at least for comparison could never hurt.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
tgsofgc
06/11/04 05:54 PM
209.110.231.117

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I was thinking the same thing, as it would help address the current problems (with taking crits/tonnage into consideration). Namely the medium pulse laser is worth more than a large pulse laser, while on a 1 to 1 basis it is clearly inferior. The problem i run into at this point is that im inclined to ignore the "peircing" of the weapon because other than the head mechs of similar weight will generally pose an equal threat to each other, and coincidentially have close BVs. The other issue is when such a system is in place it tends to devalue similar weapons in favor of the harder hitting weapons, despite the harder hitting weapon usually already being inferior (Lg Pulse Laser vs ER PPC for instance).

It is certainly thought provoking. Perhaps I could split the value of the weapon as such. Anyways this is still a very early version, and thanks for the input.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
SSFSX17
06/11/04 09:03 PM
128.195.93.199

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Titans of Steel had the right idea: three different ratings. They could best be described as Offense, Survivability, and Utility.
Lousy good-for-nothing mortals. Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.
htmlord
06/12/04 12:41 AM
216.65.162.189

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Good call on the flamers / small lasers problem, tgsofgc. I had forgotten about that. But, I have an alternate idea that would handle that problem :

In the case that heat is over (as with the Wolfhound in my previous example), instead of a direct percent of heat, allow only the highest BV weapons to be used, up to heat allocation. So, the Wolfhound would get points for its ER L Laser and two M Lasers (total of 18 heat, plus 2 for running) instead of 82% of its points. It would take a little more time and be a little less precise, due to its slightly subjective nature, but it would give a more accurate overall representation of the unit's true firepower.

About fleshing my idea out, I'd be glad to. Let me crunch the numbers some and I'll get something posted in the next day or so. I think I have a decent system I could use.
htmlord
06/12/04 02:29 AM
216.65.170.92

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Okay, I crunched the numbers, and here are the results. BTW, these are based on the following equation:

Average Damage at each minimum range (assumes MechWarrior with average Gunnery of 4, Mech walked, +0 Target Modifiers otherwise) + [ Average Damage at Short range * (Short Range - Min Range) ] + [Average Damage at Medium range * ( Medium Range - Short Range ) ] + [ Average Damage at Long range * (Long Range - Medium Range) ] + [Average Damage at Extreme range * ( Extreme Range - Long Range ) ] = Total Average damage at all ranges

That total average damage at all ranges includes missile hit modifiers, such as Streak or Artemis IV, as well as -2 to hit for pulse or +1 to hit for heavy. It also averages damage across the missile hits table. This number is my rough BV. It still needs to be scaled to the level of current BVs, but it is a good rough number. As an example, the venerable Medium Laser :

Medium Laser - Damage 5 - No Min - Short 3 - Med 6 - Long 9 - Extreme 12
No Minimum, 5 to hit at short, 7 to hit at medium, 9 to hit at long, 11 to hit at extreme
A to hit of 5 results in 30 chances out of 36, to hit of 7 yields 21 chances out of 36, to hit of 9 gives us 10 out of 36, and 11 is 3 chances per 36, so :
[ (30/36) * 5 * 3 ] + [ (21/36) * 5 * 3 ] + [ (10/36) * 5 * 3 ] + [ (3/36) * 5 * 3 ]
12.5 + 8.75 + 4.17 + 1.25 = 26.67

So, a Medium Laser has a total BV of 26.67, or 27 to make it easy. Here's a list of some IS weapons and their total damage over ranges :

ER S Laser 10.08
ER M Laser 35.56
ER L Laser 96.44
Flamer 3.56
S Laser 5.33
M Laser 26.67
L Laser 71.11
PPC 98.89
ER PPC 128.33
L Pulse Laser 82
M Pulse Laser 32
S Pulse Laser 8
L XP Laser 120
M XP Laser 48
S XP Laser 15.08
AC/2 25.78
AC/5 49.44
AC/10 88.89
AC/20 106.67
V Flamer 3.56
H Flamer 14.22
Gauss Rifle 191.25
L Gauss 112.89
LB 2-X 29.33
LB 5-X 58.33
LB 10-X 106.67
LB 20-X 142.22
L AC/2 21.33
L AC/5 44.44
MG 3.56
Ultra AC/2 56.44
Ultra AC/5 111.67
Ultra AC/10 213.33
Ultra AC/20 240
LRM-5 30.7
LRM-10 61.13
LRM-15 92.1
LRM-20 123.07
LRM-5A 37.16
LRM-10A 74.32
LRM-15A 111.49
LRM-20A 148.92
MRM-10 46.94
MRM-20 94.5
MRM-30 141.44
MRM-40 189.01
SRM-2 15.11
SRM-4 28.15
SRM-6 42.67
SSRM-2 21.33
SSRM-4 42.67
SSRM-6 64
Tbolt-5 43.33
Tbolt-10 86.67
Tbolt-15 130
Tbolt-20 173.33
SRM-2A 18.37
SRM-4A 33.19
SRM-6A 50.96

The only problems I have with this system (currently) is that it doesn't take into account some special properties, such as if the weapon can head chop, critical hit finding ability, armor punch ability, flamer's heat increase, any special ammos, or any special rules that pertain to a given weapon (anti-infantry bonuses and the like). Otherwise, I think that this is a very reasonable system. It doesn't address heat, tonnage, or bulk, but like I said before, those constraints are less on the weapon itself and more on the mech using it, so they should be addressed as such, that is, by limiting the weapons by mass and bulk and by correcting the total BV by heat at the end. Heat should be adjusted as per my previous post (not by % but best to worst, to clarify).

Okay.. comments?
tgsofgc
06/12/04 03:59 AM
209.110.232.94

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
one quick note, you definately may consider the following.

1. The to hit number, not sure but this may be a bit low. afterall the situation presented is definately an optimal and the less optimal (the higher to hit before range modifiers) the great the affect the weapon to hit modifiers will have (generally speaking). Namely its a smaller affect to roll down the base of the bell curve for a pulse laser until you reach 7+, and after 7+ the affect will be much greater.The reason i used 7+ in mine was because it kept right at the curve for short on normal weapons, and didn't exceed 12+ even in worst possible scenarios (ie using a Heavy Laser at long range).
2. You will probally want to scale the numbers to reflect the value scale used in cannon. Why because unless you plan on overhauling the other parts of the BV system (like defensive BV) this keeps them in proportion. For instance in many cases your weapons are 1/2 to 1/4 of the BV and if used with the given BV system this will make defensive BV a much bigger factor.

just a couple thoughts. GJ and fast info, I always get bored playing plug and chug with my spreadsheets afterawhile, you know
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
tgsofgc
06/12/04 04:55 AM
209.110.232.94

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ok here are the latest numbers for my test batch.

Basically my theory for going about it this time was to make the weapons BV a composite, of a number of different factors.
The first factor which accounts for 50% of the weapon's BV is the first BV I calculated in my previous step. This basically takes into account a weapon's efficiency (damage/heat) and range.

The next factor which only accounts for 10% of the weapon's final BV is a BV calculated by ranking the weapons relative density. Denser weapons (greater number of tons per crit are better in they are less likely to take damage and leave more space for other components), again the densest weapon was chosen as a basis to calculate a scaling multiplier from 412 by (in this case 6, IS AC2).

The next factor which accounts for 20% of the final BV is reflective of a weapons ability to peirce. To reflect this i found a scaling multiplier of 412 based on 20 damage being the highest (i was torn whehter or not to ignore the HGR, and did).

The final factor which represents a weapon's ability to crit seek, and again ccounts for 20% of the weapon's final BV. This number was found by finding a scaling multiplier based on the weapon capable of dealing the greatest number of different hits per shot (the LB-20X assuming 12 is the average, quick assum,ption corrected in final version). Direct fire weapons are considered 1 hit, streaks maximum, and LRMs average divided by 5, capich!

Anyhow for those who want the quick summery:
(efficiency x 0.50)+(density x 0.10)+(peirce x 0.20)+(Crit Seek x 0.20) = Final Weapon BV

While this still isn't the final version of my weapon BV system here is the sample weapon set for comparison, the Clan Energy Weapons:
215 = ER Large
192 = ER Medium
137 = ER Small
63 = ER Micro

264 = Large Pulse
255 = Medium Pulse
114 = Small Pulse
111 = Micro Pulse

143 = Heavy Large
111 = Heavy Medium
63 = Heavy Small

33 = Flammer
242 = ER PPC

Concerns:
The numbers especially in relation to the small/micro and medium lasers seems somewhat off.
The system still indicates the Medium Pulse Laser is better than the ER Large and ER PPC (Sigh)

Positives/Improvements over last post:
The weapon sub groups seem relatively consistent, for instance consider Pulse Lasers:
264 = Large Pulse
255 = Medium Pulse
114 = Small Pulse
111 = Micro Pulse
The Large is better than a single Medium or two small.
The Medium is also better than two small.
The micro is off, and should likely be closer to 60-80.

To be honest I am starting to think that perhaps a fresh start may be in order.

Final Note:
Befor eposting this i fudged the ratios:
Efficiency x 35%
Density x 24%
Peirce x 28%
Hits x 13%
To get a better looking list. While I don't like what the ratios making up this list say, namely the density of the weapon is as important as its damage, the BV list looks much better.
226 = ER Large
166 = ER Medium
116 = ER Small
53 = ER Micro

248 = Large Pulse
222 = Medium Pulse
100 = Small Pulse
92 = Micro Pulse

162 = Heavy Large
112 = Heavy Medium
67 = Heavy Small

34 = Flamer
247 = ER PPC

Notice how now, the Large pulse barely outshines the ER PPC. Also the sizes always outshine the next smaller, ie even the ER Large is better than the medium pulse now.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
tgsofgc
06/12/04 05:05 AM
209.110.232.94

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The BV system already takes these things into account, but it also combines them.
Namely if you wanted to go through and manually calculate them, or compare calculations in editor you could make lists of units with information like offessive and defensive Battle Value.

Perhaps a variant you might want to try is set limits for both.
I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
Greyslayer
06/12/04 07:46 PM
203.61.72.155

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The range of the weapon plus minimum directly affects the gunnery of a unit. Due to this one could ignore the base gunnery and use a base multiplier dependant on the modifier created. For example a LRM has 6 minimum 7 short 14 medium and 21 long.

If we used a multiplier of 8 for short, 6 for medium and 4 for long you could then modify the short range that fall under the minimum range: ranges(mod)-->
1(2) 2(3) 3(4) 4(5) 5(6) 6(7) 7(8), 9-->14(6), 15-->21(4).

I haven't yet found how best to use the multipliers though

Other multipliers:
+1 to weapons that can fire indirect (LRMs, Arrow IV and so on).
+2 to pulse
-1 to Heavy Lasers
+5% for each location roll caused by weapon (eg SSRM6 can cause up to 6 location rolls, add 25% to overall values)

Now the part about large damage modifiers, if for example you are looking at a LRM20 it cannot do 20 damage to one location with one roll so its modifier would have to work off its largest possible damage of 5 but be carrier over the full 20 damage (how to best give a modifier for generally not doing max damage I haven't dealt with yet). So at this point the method using the table below with given a modifier of 22 for the Damage but 22*1.15=25.3 after you include multiple location rolls of the LRM20 LRM20 instead of 28.5 which the AC20 would receive.
Damage/Multipler Table:
1 1
2 2.05
3 3.15
4 4.3
5 5.5
6 6.75
7 8.05
8 9.4
9 10.8
10 11.25
11 12.75
12 14.3
13 15.9
14 17.55
15 19.25
16 21
17 22.8
18 24.65
19 26.55
20 28.5
21 30.5
22 32.55
23 34.65
24 36.8
25 39


Questions were asked as to how to best calculate bv of alternate ammos. Probably the best method would be to not include the ammo bv with ANY multipliers (such as defensive and offensive for the mech), but still could the mech's ability to carry so many tons of ammo as part of the defensive value (after all, for a LRM all ammo goes *BOOM*). This way a mech does not have to be plugged back through modifiers to give a final value when fielding the unit AND you can also give values for units that have seen conflict and not carrying full loads (though this could lead to a bug with defensive values still counting the boom factor). Ignoring the second part and counting the mech as carrying standard if empty is probably the more logical option to stop rorting.

Later for heat calculations as part of the mech value it would probably be best to always use the highest possible combination of weapons bv and only 50% of the bv of those above its ability to drop heat. Ignore heat for movement as many of the larger units generally don't move to fire on targets. You still may find problems with mech's whose weapons do not fit under the heat value, so use the % of the bv to the % of heat that does fit under the threshold and then use 50% of the bv that is above the threshold. I'm sure this could be modified further by you guys. I am just adding ideas to see if the values could be made even more realistic for the medium pulse laser compared to ER PPC and Large Pulse laser..


Edited by Greyslayer (06/12/04 07:49 PM)
SSFSX17
06/13/04 01:58 AM
128.195.93.199

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't think it's a good idea to try to combine all three. This is mainly because it is not only possible to get BVs for 'mechs (esp. at level 2 and onwards without the Clans!) that are either way too high for what the 'mechs are worth, or low enough that you don't see the real use of the 'mech. In fact, that's already what's happened. I mean, seeing the "worth" of a 'mech is not anywhere nearly as simple as just assigning each component a BV and then adding up all the values. It's almost impossible to balance *every single* piece of equipment. And then you get certain combinations of things that may make the 'mech worth more, or less.

Another thing about Titans of Steel: it seems like the Offense, Defense. and El. Warfare values are also relative to tonnage. So it's perfectly possible for a Light or Recon 'mech to get a 100% rating in one of those areas. Whereas with the current BV system, a poorly designed 100-tonner would have a much higher BV than a well-designed 20-tonner. So the value-per-weight is also pretty important in seeing the "worth" of a 'mech.
Lousy good-for-nothing mortals. Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.
tgsofgc
06/13/04 09:59 AM
209.110.233.67

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well I kept fiddling and decided to start over, though using the concept of a combined BV for weapons.
Namely it calculates a number of BVs and then combines them into a single number.

The components of this sytem are as follows.
Battle Value Range - This rating uses a base to hit 7+, modified by the range (minimums where applicable), and the weapon's base modifier. Then the full chance to hit is summed. Then multiplied by a scaling multiple, 36.35305.

Battle Value Peirce - The battle value for a weapons ability to peirce through armor, or lop off limbs etc, is calculated based on 20 being the largest. As such I used the formula, 20 = X^n transformed to...
(Log X)/(Log 20) = n where X is the weapon's damage. Then n is multiplied by 412 to get the perice BV. I felt this would probally be a better system than my previous linear approach.

Battle Value Heat - This battle value rewards low heat weapons. I used 0 as being the lowest heat, ie machine guns. As such I used the following formula: n = 1/(X+1) where X is the weapon's heat. n is, as above, multiplied by 412 to find the BV Heat.

Battle Value Density - This Battle Value component will likely be the most controversal, and serves primarily to rebalnce weapons based on size. While this can make some illogical conclusions, such as the IS Flamer having a higher BV than its clan counterpart, you simply need to follow the line of reasoning and compare equal amounts of the weapons. Namely the IS Flamer isn't worth even equal to 2 Clan Flamers. This number is found by weapon weight, w, divided by the number of criticals it takes (not counting ammo for ammo fed weapons), c: w/c = n. n is then multiplied by a scaling multiple, based off of the super dense Ac-2 6!, in this case 68.66667.

These components are then averaged for the final BV score, namely they all contribute equally, and the result is multiplied by a final scaling multiplier, 1.69525.
This for all intent purposes is the final battle value for most weapons, however is decided to put in a critseeking modifier percentage. I chose this method so as not to reduce the value of single hit weapons, while upping the value of cluster weapons. At maximum this % will increase the final BV by 25%. To find the percentage i developed the following:
0.25((X-1)/11) = n, where X is the number of hits the weapon deals. For streak launchers this is self explanatory but for traditional launchers and LB-X ACs use the average number of hits (note for LRMs a hit = 5 missiles).

I after fiddling with these and desiding on these forumla, i decided they do a decent job of valuing the weapons... so I did the Clan and IS Energy weapons (which will aid in evaluation, hopefully):
Code:
	
Clan Lasers
ER Large 379
ER Medium 244
ER Small 196
ER Micro 151

Large Pulse 412
Medium Pulse 311
Small Pulse 204
Micro Pulse 192

Heavy Large 257
Heavy Medium 199
Heavy Small 172

Flamer 113
ER PPC 360

IS Lasers
Large 286
Medium 210
Small 180

ER Large 307
ER Medium 210
ER Small 165

Large Pulse 333
Medium Pulse 250
Small Pulse 177

Flamer 128
PPC 292
ER PPC 317

I find that 'pinpoint' accuracy during a bombing run increases proportionally with the amount of munitions used.
-Commander Nathaniel Klepper,
Avanti's Angels, 3058
Greyslayer
06/14/04 01:48 AM
216.14.192.234

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I've tried plugging in a few calculations, mostly with clan lasers, to see the values I can get out of the weapons. Do note I didn't give the exactly correct values in that table in the previous post (I did add 1 to the values of 10 and beyond as what should've happened in the calculation so instead of 11.25, 10 should've had the value of 12.25 and so on down the list).

Anyway I looked at using the calculations as the whole thing. In other words making the new value just weapon damage and range with associated modifiers.

I divided my previous figures by 10 for the modifiers in range brackets thus having a system as:

Short 0.8, medium 0.6, long 0.4
Pulse +0.2 per hex
Heavy -0.1 per hex
minimum -0.1 per hex per minimum as given in the previous example.

This allowed me to use the table for the modified damage (example Clan ER PPC modified damage would be 20.25)

Clan ER PPC: 20.25 per hex * 0-7 short (113.4) 8-14 medium (85.05) 15-23 long (72.9) giving a value of 271.35.
Clan Large Pulse 196
Clan Medium Pulse 77.28
Clan Small Pulse 15.12
Heavy Large Laser 165
Heavy Medium Laser 55.125
Heavy Small Laser 10.125
Clan ER Large Laser 178.85
Clan ER Medium Laser 72.45
Clan ER Small Laser 19.8


Why is the Clan Small pulse so cheap? Well because it's range is 1/2 the medium pulse while doing under 1/2 the medium pulse's damage. The Clan ER Small laser though does a further 66% more damage for the same range thus it really offsets the pulse -2 to-hit enough to warrant a higher value.

Range for me is an important factor in trying to work out the final value of any weapon. I have though, hit a snag while trying to calculate the importance of modifier weapons like pulse, the numbers just don't seem right as ER Medium Lasers are quite close in value to Medium Pulse Lasers despite only a 25% increase in range for the -2 gain in to-hit numbers. The medium Pulse is still more expensive though so at least that is something.

Anyone want to check these out to see if they do balance out more? If you are worried about the values being lower than the bv ones then just use a multiplier so that the most expensive of weapons fit within the initial parameters (eg 1.5 on top of ER PPC value).
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 92 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 14549


Contact Admins Sarna.net